Sounds like you need to change the intent of your 1:1s. I am senior at a big company (managing teams of teams) and my manager is a senior executive. I meet with him every other week and that is most of the contact I have with him. That works, as he trusts me to execute on his strategic objectives, and I like it like that. Our 1:1s are very purposeful. I inform him on things I think he should know, ask him for support where I need him, and remind him of my career aspirations to get opportunities that move me in that direction. That's it. It ends up as a nice conversation and gets us both what we need. It sounds like you could move your meetings in that general direction.
Well, my 1:1s go like that actually. My point is: if you suddenly remove your 1:1s, would the business or you get impacted? In my case the answer is: no.
The 1:1s are not terrible nor bad, I just feel that they are just superflous.
As a manager, 1:1s are primarily for you. Not the manager. If you’re getting nothing out of them, suggest changes to cadence and/or frequency.
I won’t let my staff ditch them 100% as there’s also a component where I’m using them to spot problems I might not see otherwise. But for the most part, I treat it as their time
This is a recurring problem in hierarchical relationships. The subordinates have a good reason to assume that these tete-a-tetes can be used against them; they are acting in their own rational interest because of the power imbalance. So they hold back and give superficial feedback.
As an employee I took the tactic of saying fuck it and saying what's on my mind. If it'll be used against me, so be it. I think that's the optimal path but it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. At the end of the day it's on the employee to find their path out of this.
As a manager the best I can do is try to build a solid rapport with the person in hopes that they feel comfortable opening up. But there's no magic bullet to this and every person is different. That rapport also goes both ways. I struggle with newer employees as I have no connection with them and am much more likely to fall back on generic platitudes. As I get to know the person the questions I ask and suggestions I make can be more tailored to their personalities and comfort zones.
As a Doctor, giving my patient a placebo sugar pill once a month is primarily for you. Not the Doctor. I won't let my staff ditch them 100% as there's also a component where I use them to charge their insurance. But for the most part, I treat it as their time.
There is at least one valid reason to do what GP suggested regarding 1:1s in my experience:
If an employee is having an issue that they don't want to put in writing (or you sense this), oftentimes a one-on-one is the only way to coax it out. Particularly if they have an issue with leadership, HR, other managers, etc. Decent managers are also using 1:1s to make sure their employees are treated well in the org as a whole.
But I recognize the 'decent' is doing some very heavy lifting in that sentence.
Right. As a manager I'm invested in seeing the employee grow, develop, and have a fulfilling life. It's not 100% altruistic on my part, as a happy employee who is motivated to improve is better for the company. But I also care about them as people. Thus, the 1:1 is their time to drive that. My role is to help guide and coach, but they know themselves best.
However, another part of my job is to spot larger problems. That's an exercise in pattern matching. While you're talking I'm matching to keywords I've picked up in my travels. Other meetings, 1:1s, etc. Maybe there's a problem lurking down the road that's only visible if one assembles these disparate data. Sometimes those are problems for the employee that they themselves don't realize as you suggest, other times it has no direct connection to them but they're key to identifying the issue. That last part is why I don't agree with getting rid of 1:1s altogether.
